[governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[Fouad Bajwa]

One interesting personal observation here that comes to mind with the
current statement is that do governments or business sector usually
state CS issues or what the challenges or proceedings were in the WSIS
processes with regards to CS as an important component of their
statements on such matters and in our case, EC?

It seems as if our approach is to convince governments or a certain
sector instead of clearly asserting what our views are on the issue. I
am attaching with this message a draft of the IT policy of Pakistan
that is has been sent out for comments/feedback by the govt. As you
read through this policy document (that was initially prepared with a
black box / silo approach) and then opened for comments/feedback, near
the end, you will read about the issues pertaining to critical
internet resources.

This document is the latest context in terms of a developing country,
something for the next 5-10 years. How do you see EC to effect this
country? What do you see as the social and economic implications of
this approach on the citizens of that country? Do we want
intergovernmental process lingo or do we really want to contribute
something in the form of a workable strategy? The policy document I am
sharing is an example open for a litmus test? The Pakistani govt
hasn't been part of the IGF nor a delegation has been seen by myself.
CS, tech community, academia and Private Sector members have been or a
few govt delegates on fellowships.

The concerned Ministry says it "welcomes further comments on the
revised draft policy" which may be provided by 28th of November 2010.
Comments can be provided at http://www.pcl.org.pk/policy. The draft
policy can also be viewed at the Ministry’s website
(http://moitt.gov.pk) http://www.pcl.org.pk/policy/.

I want to gain a bit of more understanding to what IGC wants out of
the EC statement instead of just putting together a statement for the
sake of it.

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa


On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Miguel Alcaine
<miguel.alcaine at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As I commented to Imran, we can even say "at all levels, particularly at the
> regional and the international level", which will be perfectly in agreement
> with WSIS outcome documents.
>
> In the implementation and follow-up, many countries governments did not want
> any language which may give basis to have "best practices" or peer reviews
> implemented, because in practice, performance evaluation comparing countries
> lead to political bargaining among and between them. In other words,
> countries governments were very keen to protect their space in national
> sovereignity terms. For example, read attached paras 85 and 100 of the TA.
>
> I guess, in summary, we can make a call to have EC at all levels, and even
> spell out all the levels: local, national, regional and international.
> However, we can elaborate further on describing and designing EC, in detail,
> for the regional and international level, but my educated guess will be that
> as international CS we will not have the opportunity to do the same at the
> national and local level, which might need to interface with Governments at
> the Governments request and might need to be advocated at the national and
> local levels.
>
> Another consideration that I thought when referring only to international
> level spelled out (while we can mention the regional level perfectly) and
> leaving all others within the phrase "at all levels" is that I thought the
> consultations are mainly concerned with the international level, because of
> the declared goal of EC in the TA about Governments being equal in the
> Internet Governance, although I recognize this is not the priority focus for
> CS.
>
> I hope this clarifies my arguments,
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> Annex
>
> 85. Taking into consideration the leading role of governments in partnership
> with other stakeholders in implementing the WSIS outcomes, including the
> Geneva Plan of Action, at the national level, we encourage those governments
> that have not yet done so to elaborate, as appropriate, comprehensive,
> forward-looking and sustainable national e-strategies, including ICT
> strategies and sectoral e-strategies as appropriate1, as an integral part of
> national development plans and poverty reduction strategies, as soon as
> possible and before 2010.
>
> 100. At the national level, based on the WSIS outcomes, we encourage
> governments, with the participation of all stakeholders and bearing in mind
> the importance of an enabling environment, to set up a national
> implementation mechanism, in which:
>
> National e-strategies, where appropriate, should be an integral part of
> national development plans, including Poverty Reduction Strategies, aiming
> to contribute to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals
> and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals.
>
> ICTs should be fully mainstreamed into strategies for Official Development
> Assistance (ODA) through more effective information-sharing and coordination
> among development partners, and through analysis and sharing of best
> practices and lessons learned from experience with ICT for development
> programmes.
>
> Existing bilateral and multilateral technical assistance programmes,
> including those under the UN Development Assistance Framework, should be
> used whenever appropriate to assist governments in their implementation
> efforts at the national level.
>
> Common Country Assessment reports should contain a component on ICT for
> development.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>> Miguel
>>
>> Can you share with us the arguments why the national level was
>> intentionally left out of the international mechanism? Pls.  I would like to
>> see emphasis also to the national and regional level. EC should be done at
>> the national, regional, and international level. Not all Treaties
>> conventions are good, and our countries should not sign or follow those
>> recommendation if its affects their own citizens at the national or regional
>> level. For example, it is dangerous to see the Budapest Convention exported
>> to other countries, as it has serious implications for citizen's fundamental
>> rights.  Despite the serious concerns that the Budapest Convention / Council
>> of Europe itself contain, the harm to third countries outside Europe, for
>> instance, Latin America is dangerous.  While the EU for instance has the
>> Ecommerce Directive, The Data Protection Directive, the E-Privacy Directive,
>> Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other check and balance in place etc,
>> many countries lack of these regulatory frameworks.
>>
>> I know, it can be worst with the ITU (and the end of anonymity). Please
>> read: UN rejects international cybercrime treaty
>>
>> http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
>> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
>> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
>> far more broadly to include other substantive Internet related public policy
>> issues that require attention and resolution at all levels, particularly the
>> global level.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
>> cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented
>> and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>>
>>
>>
>> [COMMENT: EC has to happen at all levels, but the consultation is mainly
>> towards the global and to some extent to the regional level. The national
>> level was intentionally left out of the international mechanisms]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Pakistan_Draft_National_IT_Policy_2010.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 292878 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/c1e8a336/attachment.pdf>